From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Feb 17 17:54:11 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA03455
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:54:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA03449
          for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:54:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.3/8.6.9) id MAA20191; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:48:37 +1100
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:48:37 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199702180148.MAA20191@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, j@ida.interface-business.de
Subject: Re: ep0 in GENERIC
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>Why don't we use the following config line for ep0 (3C509)?
>
>device ep0 at isa? port ? net irq ? vector epintr

Because the probe doesn't honour conflicts and is invasive.

>The autoprobing seems to work, and it's as invasive as not using
>autoprobing since it happens by reading the EEPROM via a fixed port
>address (which is done anyway as long as at least one ep device is

No, the autoprobing isn't done if a previous driver finds something
at 0x300, because the ep0 address conflicts so ep0 isn't probed.  The
probes are done in non-alphabetical order to increase the chance of
avoiding invasive probes like ep0's.

Bruce